I am not sure how I feel about the government having the power to control the internet in this way?

Is this a loss of freedom for National Security?

David

Kevin Leavitt

08-29-2009, 12:18 PM

Ummm DARPA invented the internet, so it is just an lllusion that it is "free" anyway. What makes you think the Government hasn't had the ability to do this all along anyway? The bill just formalizes the ability that the Government has had all along anyway.

I don't think it is a big deal as there is alot to be lost if and when this decision was ever made. I think in the event of National Security most folks would probably "Forgive" the intrusion as a sacrifice that is necessary.

Again, if and when this was done it would affect the economy and the level of trust.

Sort of like having the Big Red Button for the Nukes. Our government has the power whether we like it or not....but we trust them to make the right decision since it is a big one.

At some point I believe, we just have to admit that this level of power exsist out there and be mindful of it.

Bill is probably more protective of our rights than if we didn't have it. At least it will codify the trigger points.

Again, don't assume that this power has not exsisted before now...we have always possessed the ability to control the internet...remember it is a DARPA thing!

DonMagee

08-29-2009, 02:12 PM

Ummm DARPA invented the internet, so it is just an lllusion that it is "free" anyway. What makes you think the Government hasn't had the ability to do this all along anyway? The bill just formalizes the ability that the Government has had all along anyway.

I don't think it is a big deal as there is alot to be lost if and when this decision was ever made. I think in the event of National Security most folks would probably "Forgive" the intrusion as a sacrifice that is necessary.

Again, if and when this was done it would affect the economy and the level of trust.

Sort of like having the Big Red Button for the Nukes. Our government has the power whether we like it or not....but we trust them to make the right decision since it is a big one.

At some point I believe, we just have to admit that this level of power exsist out there and be mindful of it.

Bill is probably more protective of our rights than if we didn't have it. At least it will codify the trigger points.

Again, don't assume that this power has not exsisted before now...we have always possessed the ability to control the internet...remember it is a DARPA thing!

Maybe it was, but now it is a corporate thing. I personally don't trust the government to use power like that only in a emergency. I trust them to use it to quiet to voices of contrary opinion under the guise of terrorism.

Every new power the government gains is a bad one. That is my general stance on it.

Hogan

08-29-2009, 03:41 PM

My God, how much more of this threat to civil liberty are we going to take from Bush & Co? One civil liberty after another begin taken away, more government control every day over every aspect of our lives. I am TIRED of Bush...

...oh... wait.. never mind.

Kevin Leavitt

08-29-2009, 03:59 PM

Maybe it was, but now it is a corporate thing. I personally don't trust the government to use power like that only in a emergency. I trust them to use it to quiet to voices of contrary opinion under the guise of terrorism.

Every new power the government gains is a bad one. That is my general stance on it.

But I thought that is why we had the whole balance of powers thing and the right to bear arms?

The assumption is that the government is GAINING power. I don't think this is true. They already HAVE the power, the bill admits that the government has the power and outlines the methodology for using it.

Don't necessarily like it either, but the fact remains that it exisit and I don't think I'd be comfortable on the flip side of us giving it up either, that thought is horrifiying as well, especially if terrorist groups can shut down our infrastructure.

I think our political system and economic system should be able to keep any abuses in check.

Kinda like the case of Wikipedia choosing to suppress news stories on the whole David Rohde kidnapping deal. DId they do the right thing or the wrong thing? Wikidpedia retains the ability to censor, however, it is not in their best interest to do so, and if they do, then they risk losing the trust of the public. However, is it ethical to interfere for something like David Rohde?

I think the issue is complex and not that easy to solve or mitigate.

David Orange

08-29-2009, 05:01 PM

My God, how much more of this threat to civil liberty are we going to take from Bush & Co? One civil liberty after another begin taken away, more government control every day over every aspect of our lives. I am TIRED of Bush...

...oh... wait.. never mind.

Never mind? or Mindless????

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/74549.html

dps

08-29-2009, 09:05 PM

DARPA gave up control a long time ago.

From http://www.savetz.com/yic/YIC01FI_19.html.

1.19. Who runs the Internet?

"No one "runs" the Internet. There is no governing entity or business calling the shots. Remember, the Internet is a decentralized mass of thousands of smaller networks, each running with their own purpose, their own sources of income, and their own rulemakers. The Internet is more or less an anarchy. Every organization that is plugged into the Internet is responsible for its own computers.

The fact that no one runs the Internet has its advantages and disadvantages. On the up side, there are no membership fees, no censorship, and no government control. Unfortunately, when something goes wrong (if an important computer goes down or another user begins annoying you), there's no central authority to ask for help. In the absence of "net cops" policing the Internet, users need to rely on their own judgments and the assistance of the system administrators at their site to solve problems or resolve disputes. Most of the time, you're on your own.

The Internet is guided in its growth, however, by several organizations (loosely called the Internet technical groups) that manage it. These organizations attempt to structure the Internet while creating a minimum of restrictions."

Bold type is from me.

David

David Orange

08-30-2009, 12:16 AM

DARPA gave up control a long time ago.

From http://www.savetz.com/yic/YIC01FI_19.html.

1.19. Who runs the Internet?

"No one "runs" the Internet. There is no governing entity or business calling the shots....and no government control.

And the government couldn't know your favorite web site even if they cared....

You should know that long before Bush, the CIA and NSA had the whole internet fully infiltrated and plotted. They created it. They only opened it to the public to get people to hook themselves into it. They have always controlled it. You think they made something like this and just gave it away with no strings attached???

As Maj. Leavitt advised you, it's a DARPA project and it's still underway. You just didn't know you were a DARPA subject, did you?

David

dps

08-30-2009, 01:58 AM

You should know that long before Bush, the CIA and NSA had the whole internet fully infiltrated and plotted. They created it.

Gee, are you sure,

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. "

by Al Gore

David

dps

08-30-2009, 02:48 AM

And the government couldn't know your favorite web site even if they cared....

You should know that long before Bush, the CIA and NSA had the whole internet fully infiltrated and plotted. They created it. They only opened it to the public to get people to hook themselves into it. They have always controlled it. You think they made something like this and just gave it away with no strings attached???

As Maj. Leavitt advised you, it's a DARPA project and it's still underway. You just didn't know you were a DARPA subject, did you?

David Just in case you were serious.

Simply put,
The Internet is the hardware and the www (World Wide Web ) is one of many types of software that uses the hardware to transmit information.

The interconnecting hardware is owned by private and public communications companies world wide and the networks (that are connected together with the hardware) are owned by private and public entities world wide,

http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2002/Web_vs_Internet.asp

The legislation would allow the government's control of the private property deemed critical for national security and during a cyber emergency in the United States require the private entities to give private information to the government. The government is the one that decides whose private property is critical and the president decides the cyber emergency and can exercise undefined powers.

David

David Orange

08-30-2009, 10:24 AM

Gee, are you sure,

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. "

by Al Gore

David

Anyone with a little intelligence and honest thinking knows that Gore meant that he took the initiative in opening "DARPANET," as "the internet" was originally known, to public and business use. He was a leader in that initiative and in that regard his statement was completely true. He never claimed to have invented DARPANET.

Anyone really naive and gullible and without a knowledge of the history of "the internet" would fail to understand that the entire backbone was created by CIA/NSA through DARPA. Anyone knowing that this thing is, at heart, a US Government Issued structure would understand that no nook or cranny or backwater of cyberspace is free from US Government penetration, influence and, ultimately, US Government ownership and control.

Typically, I find that people who harp on Gore's statement are only now noticing the wholesale devaluation of American freedom and think that the last eight years of Cheney/Rove cabalistic power-grabbing are the work of Barack Obama.

It's really sad to see.

David Orange

08-30-2009, 10:28 AM

Simply put,
The Internet is the hardware and the www (World Wide Web ) is one of many types of software that uses the hardware to transmit information.

And it all runs through a backbone created and maintained by the US government. They have access to every electron that flows through it. And Cheney had his nose deep in your private areas for the past eight years.

The legislation would allow the government's control of the private property deemed critical for national security and during a cyber emergency in the United States require the private entities to give private information to the government. The government is the one that decides whose private property is critical and the president decides the cyber emergency and can exercise undefined powers.

Kevin has already explained this to you in more polite terms. The government already has all that access and all that control and Bush made those decisions without oversight and without limit for the past eight years. You're just now realizing, though...so I don't expect that you'll catch on to the real deal anytime soon.

dps

08-30-2009, 12:52 PM

And it all runs through a backbone created and maintained by the US government. They have access to every electron that flows through it. And Cheney had his nose deep in your private areas for the past eight years.

Kevin has already explained this to you in more polite terms. The government already has all that access and all that control and Bush made those decisions without oversight and without limit for the past eight years. You're just now realizing, though...so I don't expect that you'll catch on to the real deal anytime soon.

Can you provide sources to back up what you say about the internet?

From http://infosthetics.com/archives/2006/03/internet_map.html

internet backbone map
http://infosthetics.com/archives/internetmapusa.jpg
extremely detailed map of the North American Internet backbone including 134,855 routers. the colors represent who each router is registered to: red is Verizon, blue AT&T, yellow Qwest, green is major backbone players like Level 3 & Sprint Nextel, black is the entire cable industry put together, & gray is everyone else, from small telecommunications companies to large international players who only have a small presence in the U.S.
this map demonstrates that although AT&T & Verizon own a lot of Internet pipes, they currently do not dominate the Internet infrastructure (yet).
see also opte project & ddos attack visualization.
[cio.com (PDF/1.1MB) & cio.com]

From http://computer.howstuffworks.com/who-owns-internet.htm/printable

In the beginning, there was ARPANET
ARPANET was a network of computers housed in various universities, government agencies and research facilities. The people who built ARPANET designed many of the protocols that the Internet uses today. ARPANET connected to several other computer networks and the Internet was born. The agency responsible for ARPANET was the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a branch of the United States Department of Defense (DoD). Since ARPANET began as a U.S. government-sponsored project, you could argue that at one time, the U.S. government owned the Internet.

The physical network that carries Internet traffic between different computer systems is the Internet backbone. In the early days of the Internet, ARPANET served as the system's backbone. Today, several large corporations provide the routers and cable that make up the Internet backbone. These companies are upstream Internet Service Providers (ISPs). That means that anyone who wants to access the Internet must ultimately work with these companies, which include:

* UUNET
* Level 3
* Verizon
* AT&T
* Qwest
* Sprint
* IBM

From http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,12545,00.html

A relatively small number of companies own and operate the fiber and cables that form the Internet infrastructure, with most of the power centered in the U.S., which has been the dominant nation in terms of Internet backbone and use. MCI WorldCom's UUNet division, ATT (T), GTE (GTK)'s Internetworking, Global Crossing (GX), Qwest Communications International (Q) and PSINet (PSIX) are among the U.S.-based major players. Globally, Telstra, the Australian national telecommunications carrier, and Global TeleSystems Group (GTS), which offers broadband in 20 European countries as well as various Asian incumbent telecommunications companies, have major ownership stakes.

David

David Orange

08-30-2009, 01:36 PM

Can you provide sources to back up what you say about the internet?

You provided your own documentation of what I said.

It is correct that the net was originally ARPANET, not DARPANET, but it was constructed by DARPA and everything built on that has to intereact with the DARPA roots of the system.

And Al Gore was central and instrumental in opening that system to the public and business.

But anyone who thinks that system is not entirely permeable to and manipulable and controlable by CIA/NSA (and always has been) should vote Palin 2012.

rroeserr

08-30-2009, 01:59 PM

Ummm DARPA invented the internet, so it is just an lllusion that it is "free" anyway. What makes you think the Government hasn't had the ability to do this all along anyway? The bill just formalizes the ability that the Government has had all along anyway.

I don't think it is a big deal as there is alot to be lost if and when this decision was ever made. I think in the event of National Security most folks would probably "Forgive" the intrusion as a sacrifice that is necessary.

Again, if and when this was done it would affect the economy and the level of trust.

Sort of like having the Big Red Button for the Nukes. Our government has the power whether we like it or not....but we trust them to make the right decision since it is a big one.

At some point I believe, we just have to admit that this level of power exsist out there and be mindful of it.

Bill is probably more protective of our rights than if we didn't have it. At least it will codify the trigger points.

Again, don't assume that this power has not exsisted before now...we have always possessed the ability to control the internet...remember it is a DARPA thing!

DARPA funded projects at different Universities and TCP protocol suite was created. What you probably think of as the Internet is HTML and HTTP was created by WC3. To say DARPA invented the internet is ignorant.

Kevin Leavitt

08-30-2009, 02:41 PM

Yea good point Robert. Funded/Sponsored/Collaborated is probably a better choice of words than invented.

David Orange

08-30-2009, 04:02 PM

DARPA funded projects at different Universities and TCP protocol suite was created. What you probably think of as the Internet is HTML and HTTP was created by WC3. To say DARPA invented the internet is ignorant.

They laid the cornerstone and it's still there, along with portals to every aspect of the internet that exists, including tons of applications and capacities that ordinary citizens neither know about nor have anything to do with.

DARPA funded projects at different Universities and TCP protocol suite was created.

More or less the same way the government "invented" the bomb: they paid university people to do it. And when those university folks working in the employ of the US government had created the bomb, who "owned" the bomb? Certainly not the scientists or the university and the same applies to ARPANET.

What you probably think of as the Internet is HTML and HTTP was created by WC3.

That's not what I "think of as the internet". Those are just protocols that run on the internet, which is still and always will be ARPANET at core. And everyone who ever uses the internet for anything will be walking on top of a US government machine. And all their information and methods will always be accessible to the government, as they always have been.

To say DARPA invented the internet is ignorant.

To think that DARPA's part in it was anything but central is both ignorant and naive. And to think that DAPRA/CIA/NSA don't have complete access is also naive.

In any case, the internet has now become both a vital necessity and a critical vulnerability for American society. Whether anyone thinks it's good or free, our government has the means to control any and every part of it and really should. When Russians, Chinese and AQ actively seek every day to learn to control our vital infrastructure through that porous system, there must be someone who can shut some of the doors and lock some of the windows when and as necessary.

The surprising thing is that the universally-intrusive Bush administration didn't do more to protect it than they did.

Current efforts to formalize that power are nothing more than formalities and those who would try to blow it up to something bigger should join up with those who claim that Obama is stockpiling guillotines and provisioning concentration camps.

dps

08-30-2009, 05:05 PM

And it all runs through a backbone created and maintained by the US government.

Please show proof (references and sources) that the government maintains the internet backbone(s).

From,
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa091598.htm

"As non-military uses for the network increased, more and more people had access, and it was no longer safe for military purposes. As a result, MILnet, a military only network, was started in 1983."

'In 1986, one LAN branched out to form a new competing network, called NSFnet (National Science Foundation Network). NSFnet first linked together the five national supercomputer centers, then every major university, and it started to replace the slower ARPAnet (which was finally shutdown in 1990). NSFnet formed the backbone of what we call the Internet today."

David

David Orange

08-30-2009, 05:15 PM

Please show proof (references and sources) that the government maintains the internet backbone(s).

Show me anything they ever let go of.

It's amazing to me that some people believe in death panels and stockpiled guillotines but they don't think the government can intercept their e-mails or monitor their surfing on the web.

Bliss on.

lbb

08-30-2009, 06:38 PM

Wow, do I miss Ted Kennedy already.

gdandscompserv

08-30-2009, 07:09 PM

Show me anything they ever let go of.

It's amazing to me that some people believe in death panels and stockpiled guillotines but they don't think the government can intercept their e-mails or monitor their surfing on the web.

Bliss on.
Perhaps we could we see a little more hyperbole from you David:D

rroeserr

08-30-2009, 07:24 PM

Show me anything they ever let go of.

It's amazing to me that some people believe in death panels and stockpiled guillotines but they don't think the government can intercept their e-mails or monitor their surfing on the web.

Bliss on.

Actually the government can't just intercept your emails without your ISP, or mail provider turning them over. You can always encrypt whatever you are doing anyway. Elliptic curve cryptography (it uses a logarithm function of an elliptic curve instead of just a large primes) is unbreakable without quantum computers, and RSA encryption using large primes isn't exactly easy either. If we had too we could always do what the Chinese do and just use VPN, or SSH to circumvent government monitoring.

The fact that some people believe in death panels has nothing to do with free speech, and the right to privacy.

David Orange

08-31-2009, 03:34 PM

Actually the government can't just intercept your emails without your ISP, or mail provider turning them over.

I was once in a university class with an exchange student who was a fighter pilot for another country.

He was very casual about what all his country's intelligence agency could do.

A young and very pretty woman in the class challenged him saying, there were limits on things, he couldn't do all that.

The guy said, "If we want, we can get a picture of you in your shower," and she shut up.

I said, "How could you do a thing like that?" I'm thinking hiding a camera in her bathroom or something. The girl just looked at me with daggers but didn't say anything else.

It finally dawned on me many years later that she shut up because he had already taken a picture of her in her shower...and he was just letting her know that..."we have ways..."

So, uh....how hard is it to get stuff off an ISP, do you really think?

You can always encrypt whatever you are doing anyway. Elliptic curve cryptography (it uses a logarithm function of an elliptic curve instead of just a large primes) is unbreakable without quantum computers, and RSA encryption using large primes isn't exactly easy either. If we had too we could always do what the Chinese do and just use VPN, or SSH to circumvent government monitoring.

That still doesn't mean they can't get in your bathroom--or get someone else in there.

The fact that some people believe in death panels has nothing to do with free speech, and the right to privacy.

Sure, I believe in the right to privacy, but to be harping on that after eight years of Bush is really way over the hill. Any sense of privacy on the internet should be practically considered a fantasy.

But the relation to death panels is that this whole thread is based on propaganda coming out of the "Tea Party" bunch, that ties up all those right-wing fear machine issues including death panel baloney, birther hype and the stockpiling of guillotines to let the goverment get rid of good patriotic right-wingers and efficiently harvest their organs (and that is not hyperbole: there are groups preaching this nutty stuff and they float on the effluence of the tea baggers):

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/74549.html

So there are honest issues about the internet, but this thread does not reflect them. This is "birther" internet paranoia.

David

David Orange

08-31-2009, 03:37 PM

David Orange wrote:

It's amazing to me that some people believe in death panels and stockpiled guillotines but they don't think the government can intercept their e-mails or monitor their surfing on the web.

Perhaps we could we see a little more hyperbole from you David:D

I try, but when you read stuff like this, I'm clearly a minor league player in that field:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/74549.html

Thanks.

David

DonMagee

09-01-2009, 07:29 AM

But I thought that is why we had the whole balance of powers thing and the right to bear arms?

The assumption is that the government is GAINING power. I don't think this is true. They already HAVE the power, the bill admits that the government has the power and outlines the methodology for using it.

Don't necessarily like it either, but the fact remains that it exisit and I don't think I'd be comfortable on the flip side of us giving it up either, that thought is horrifiying as well, especially if terrorist groups can shut down our infrastructure.

I think our political system and economic system should be able to keep any abuses in check.

Kinda like the case of Wikipedia choosing to suppress news stories on the whole David Rohde kidnapping deal. DId they do the right thing or the wrong thing? Wikidpedia retains the ability to censor, however, it is not in their best interest to do so, and if they do, then they risk losing the trust of the public. However, is it ethical to interfere for something like David Rohde?

I think the issue is complex and not that easy to solve or mitigate.

Tell ya what,

If the government will promise to stop attacking the 2nd amendment, and on top of that, get rid of all the import restrictions on automatic weapons / allow me to own weapons that may actually allow the people to revolt if it became necessary, then I'll stop complaining when the try to steal every little bit of power.

So when I can walk into my local gun shop and walk out with a m249 or hell even a recently built mp5 without paying a huge federal tax I'll shut the hell up.

I was once in a university class with an exchange student who was a fighter pilot for another country.

He was very casual about what all his country's intelligence agency could do.

A young and very pretty woman in the class challenged him saying, there were limits on things, he couldn't do all that.

The guy said, "If we want, we can get a picture of you in your shower," and she shut up.

I said, "How could you do a thing like that?" I'm thinking hiding a camera in her bathroom or something. The girl just looked at me with daggers but didn't say anything else.

It finally dawned on me many years later that she shut up because he had already taken a picture of her in her shower...and he was just letting her know that..."we have ways..."

So, uh....how hard is it to get stuff off an ISP, do you really think?

That still doesn't mean they can't get in your bathroom--or get someone else in there.

Sure, I believe in the right to privacy, but to be harping on that after eight years of Bush is really way over the hill. Any sense of privacy on the internet should be practically considered a fantasy.

But the relation to death panels is that this whole thread is based on propaganda coming out of the "Tea Party" bunch, that ties up all those right-wing fear machine issues including death panel baloney, birther hype and the stockpiling of guillotines to let the goverment get rid of good patriotic right-wingers and efficiently harvest their organs (and that is not hyperbole: there are groups preaching this nutty stuff and they float on the effluence of the tea baggers):

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/74549.html

So there are honest issues about the internet, but this thread does not reflect them. This is "birther" internet paranoia.

David

They need a warrant to get into someones house, or information from a ISP. And after they got a warrant they would need to monitor activity - lot of stuff just isn't keep - it takes up to much space. Like I said before, and you seemed to ignore, you can always use encryption, SSH, or VPN.

Your argument is an inductive fallacy. You are saying because some of the people that are against this bill believe in death panels then this bill must a right wing issue. I don't believe in death panels, but I don't like this bill.

Did you actually look at some of groups opposed to the bill - like the Internet Security Alliance, or the Electronic Frontier Foundation? ISA is non-profit organization that is run out of a Cargnie Mellon, and the EFF is civil liberties group.

You believe that the Constitution gives the President the authority to take control of private networks without notifying anyone for 48 hours when he deems it necessary for national security?

UNKNOWN COMMENTATOR: "By some stories I've seen, up to two million communications every hour of every day, and the only basis apparently on which the government is listening in on these conversations is the computer picks up a certain key word that you don't know what it is."

From http://wiki.answers.com

/Q/What_is_the_total_number_of_bytes_on_the_internet
What is the total number of bytes on the internet?

"Finding the answer to this question is improbable. The internet is a worldwide, publicly accessible series of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP). It's not like there's some huge hard drive somewhere holding all of the internet's information. It's a network of smaller networks that is constantly expanding and contracting.

Example: Let's say there's exactly 1YB (yottabyte) worth of information on the internet right now. That would make it about 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 bytes. Then, let's say this post that I'm submitting is about 40KB (kilobyte). That means I just added 40,960 bytes to the internet. Now the internet has 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,747,136 bytes. That's just from this one post.

Simply put, if somebody could find out the correct answer to this question, the answer would be wrong by the time they submitted the post. In fact, they'd probably be way off."

David

David Orange

09-01-2009, 10:34 PM

They need a warrant to get into someones house, or information from a ISP.

Many years ago, I worked for a bank where the head of security was a former Secret Service man. He was having a little insubordination from some of the old bank investigators and he just waved them off. He told me, "I've been working with men all my life, most of them having Masters and Doctor's degrees and their job being to do things without anybody's ever finding out."

Sure they need a warrant. Unless someone at your ISP makes some kind of deal with someone. They do it with criminals, after all. Why wouldn't they do it with NSA? Over the past eight years, freedom to search has increased dramatically and the need for warrants has been pretty well shown to be easily waved off.

Like I said before, and you seemed to ignore, you can always use encryption, SSH, or VPN.

Sure. But that doesn't alter the nature of the system you're sending these signals on and how permeable it is to government. And that also doesn't affect the main point, which is that the government built it and it would be very naive to think they're not playing it like a mammoth pipe organ.

Your argument is an inductive fallacy. You are saying because some of the people that are against this bill believe in death panels then this bill must a right wing issue. I don't believe in death panels, but I don't like this bill.

Sure. And where did you first learn about this bill? Think carefully.

I'll bet it was something that will finally trace back to some right wing source or the tea-baggers or Lyndon Larouche. And they also "frame" the presentation of the matter in a way that typically highly distorts the facts, just as they have done with "death panels" in the health care debate.

The point is not to debate, but to crush and smother debate with wave after wave of misrepresentation and outright lies. The point is not to present real, useful information but to stir up hate and anger, even at the expense of the stability and safety of this nation. This is stuff those right-wingers would have killed for if Bush had implemented it.

Here's the real reason for this thread:

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/pat-oliphant

I haven't read the bill and I'm not too concerned because the net is already full of holes and the holes are already full of spies. And some control is definitely necessary to interecpt terrorist use of the net and to prevent remote manipulation of electrical generation, nuclear power plants, government agencies, and the like.

You believe that the Constitution gives the President the authority to take control of private networks without notifying anyone for 48 hours when he deems it necessary for national security?

I have no doubt that the President has long had the authority to shut down pretty much anything he wants if he has reasons. I mean, local cops can take you off the street and effectively disappear you, at least for awhile, for almost nothing. Feds can seriously disappear you. They interned the Japanese in WWII. Don't just wishfully limit the feds because they're going to do what they're going to do, regardless of how we feel about it, at least under certain circumstances. Don't forget, Cheney was ready to shoot down Flight 93 on 9/11...

They didn't build this world-spanning intelligence machine so that it could slip beyond their grasp. Don't believe that for a second. Right or wrong, like it or not, US spooks are the ghost in the machine.

Best to you.

David

DonMagee

09-03-2009, 07:15 AM

So, just for the record, AT&T can't get the fact they are launching a new product a secret until launch date, yet they can keep a massive spook conspiracy to undermine our privacy a secret?

Oh wait, they failed at that too http://www.eff.org/cases/att

The fact is there are no great conspiracies. Sure maybe for a few years you can keep something under wraps, but eventually it always leaks out. Everyone loves to brag.

Everyone has a wife who would post pictures of your beach house vacation on facebook when your the head of MI6 and your identity is top secret. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6644199.ece

So if the government has some kind of super secret internet spy machine, we would know about it. I've worked in telecom from the age of 16. I've worked on the router/switch/server level for years. I never been told to install any kind of backdoor agents on the equipment under my control.

The silliness of this is that a good portion of the internet isn't even in the US. The only good use for this bill is to prevent the American people from getting information from or two the rest of the world. It would not stop terrorists (who use more common means of passing information anyway), and it doesn't not protect the government from attack (They could just unhook themselves from the net and leave me up).

Any kind of government shutting down the internet in the US is for one purpose only, to prevent americans from getting information. Are they going to shut down throw away cell phone calls overseas? Are they going to stop payphone calls overseas? What about mail? Personal ads in newspapers.

This is either a feel good measure to get people to think we are protecting them, or a way for the government to have legal right (which is different from being able to do it) to take away freedom.

Which is a good point to make. To everyone who says "Well the government can already do it, so who cares", I want you to stop and think about all the things the government can already do. They can gas a town with mustard gas. Drop bombs and nukes, pick you up on the street and beat you half to death and leave you in the gutter. Would you be ok with a bill that said it was ok for the government to kill the children of 'terrorists' inside the US without any legal checking? I mean they can do it now right? The NSA/CIA could just swoop in and kill the babies of suspected terrorists. In any case, why have laws at all, why have elections at all, let's just find our chairman Mao and be done with it already.

lbb

09-03-2009, 08:23 AM

I"m with Don. I live in a small town, and my little general store doesn't have enough aluminum foil to make hats for the conspiracies being advanced in this thread.

So, just for the record, AT&T can't get the fact they are launching a new product a secret until launch date, yet they can keep a massive spook conspiracy to undermine our privacy a secret?

It's simply a fact that the US government created the internet. It seems odd to me that everyone here wants to assert that the government has very limited access to the system it created yet there is such fear the the US government is going to shut it down if they want to.

Which is it?

If they don't have the power to control it, then where's the concern that they can shut it down?

The fact is, the created this worldwide system and they play it like a piano. Whatever we think we know about it, the CIA and NSA know a thousand times more. Call it a conspiracy but it's not: it's the US government running its intelligence programs and if for some reason, anyone believes that the internet is the one and only place they're "not" running those programs, I'm simply telling you it's not. The internet is permeated with NSA/CIA activity. So it's not a conspiracy, at all. It's the US government doing what it does.

So look once more at this double negative idea y'all are espousing: the government really has no control over the internet...yet they're going to shut it down....

I'm just saying yes they can shut it down because yes they built it and yes they have a lot of control over it. It was never anything but a spy trap after it went public.

I'm not saying it "ought to" be that way. That's just how it is, regardless of what any ordinary American citizen might believe.

David

dps

09-04-2009, 03:42 PM

If they already control it and can shut it down whenever they feel like it then..... why are they seeking legislation to control it and shut it down whenever they feel like it? :confused:

David

David Orange

09-05-2009, 01:14 PM

If they already control it and can shut it down whenever they feel like it then..... why are they seeking legislation to control it and shut it down whenever they feel like it? confused